About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
at the u.n. and had this graphic illustration of the problem, he created what was a new threshold for them. and the threshold. from the previous to my don't know, 6-12 months the israelis have been focusing on primarily because of the defense minister, what he called the son of immunity. what he meant was, iran was going to of, with the character of the sip their program, the theft of the redundancy, the hardening of the nuclear program would reach a point where the israelis would actually lose their military options. and not just this one, easily accept a situation where they face a threat but no longer have the military option to deal with it. and so what he was trying to say come identify the point at which the zone of immunity, he was saying it would be the end of 2012. he has changed that and said it has been pushed back. when the prime minister was in new york he focused on the point at which the iranians would cross a threshold where there would have the ability to grow the nuclear weapon and you would not be allowed to do anything about it. he was suggesting that would be when they
, general john mccain speaking out about u.n. ambassador susan rice's potential nomination as the next secretary of state. rice has come underfire from john mccain and other lawmakers for early remarks about the attack in libya which turned out to be false. while appearing on fox news sunday, senator john mccain said he would be willing to an opportunity to explain her position. listen. >> is there anything that ambassador rice can do to change your mind? >> sure, she can, i give everyone the benefit of explaining their position and the actions they took. i will be glad to have the opportunity to discuss the issues with her. >>chris: you are saying she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> she deserves the ability to explain her position. she is not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states. >>heather: republican senator graham joined senator john mccain saying ambassador rise deserves another chance to defend her remarks on the benghazi attack. >>gregg: the official timeline on benghazi attacks, september 14, white house spokesman carney says
when he gave his speech at the u.n. and he had this graphic illustration of the problem, he created what was a new threshold for them. for the previous, i don't know, six to 12 months, israelis have been focusing on what they called immunity. the result of immunity. what you mean by that was the death and the breath and the hardening of the nuclear program they face an existential threat and have the military option to deal with it. so they are saying under a point at which they own immunity is going to kick in, he was saying this is going to be the end of 2012. he has changed that and has said it has been pushed back eight to 10 months. when the prime minister was in new york, he focused not only on his own immunity, but the point at which iranians would cross the threshold where they would have the ability to build a nuclear weapon and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. and he was suggesting that that would be when they had one at 20%. that is a limited definition. the issue for him was to define in a way, it also pushed off into the middle of 2013. they came up with di
at the u.n. and e had this graphic -- he had this graphic illustration of the problem, he was, he created what was a new threshold for them. he called it a red line, but a new threshold. they had -- for the previous, i don't know, 6-12 months the israelis had been focusing on, primarily because of the defense minister, ehud barak, the zone of immunity. and what he meant was iran was going to with the character of its nuclear program, the depth, the breadth, the redundancy, the hardening of the nuclear program was going to reach a point where the israelis would actually lose their military option. and no israeli prime minister is going to accept a situation where they face an existential threat, but they no longer have a military option to deal with it. so ehud barak was trying to identify the point at which the zone of immunity was going to kick in. now, he was saying it was going to be the end of 2012. now, he's changed that and said it's been pushed back 8-12 -- 8-10 months. when the prime minister was in new york he focused not on the zone of immunity, he focused on what's the point in
and you have perhaps a u.n. operation in the international coordination is weak leadership. you have confusion. i think one of the highest hurdles to overcome is the residual feeling, often among ngos that they would be contaminated if they do any cooperation with the military. but mostly he says, it's only the military that has the logistic capacity to project not only power, but to project units and sanitation equipment into a remote area and to take people out from the remote area who need more sophisticated care. so if you don't have leadership on the ground, it can help bridge the gaps. i think there's also contiguous set of intellectual political pass. obviously some groups, the red cross, quakers at his long tradition of relating to the military on battlefields and knowing how to deal the potential sense of conflicts and perspectives. but i think that's the dialogue that had to be extended to all of these other groups that are active. i think some are fairly pragmatic. and thinking of doctors without borders right now. there are others who are anything but. so that's an area w
. when i look at what's going on this area, to u.n. security council is dysfunctional, not working, not capable of coming to a conclusion. the g20 has not fulfilled, at least not according to me, the expectations we had when this larger body was created. in other words, from a european point of view, you need to worry about the fact that europe will have obviously a smaller portion of the cake in the future. germany is going to a 1% of the worlds population. the e.u. altogether 5%, 40 or so. in other words, what probably needs minority protection. we have a ton about that much. that's a specific problem for europeans, not so much for americans. if that is correct analysis, did we need to worry about global governance. we are capable as long as we are in charge and as long as we still represent to some degree the majority and as long as are capable for helping to shape the international system. we are capable of shaping an international system, which will be sustained even when we are only a minority. in other words, we called the shot. can we reform the u.n., the g20 system and oth
-integrating everything. for the first 75 years, we have never received the people's republic of china and the u.n. report -- they changed this position on the island. and to me, i don't want to get into that too many details. frankly, this is not the heart of the issue. china is trying to advance. there is an issue with japan. from japan to taiwan, the philippines, this is from the viewpoint of china. china has openly expressed their views on this in maritime security. and those are part of the reality. so this is a kind of comprehensive strategy to advance. >> that is an important point. what you're basically saying is that this is about power and the power -- china is clearly becoming more powerful. you are seeing lines being challenged. i remember talking to george soros once after he broke the back of england -- i'm sorry, broke the bank of england. what he saw as a hedge fund manager basically drove so hard against the wind that fundamentally the institutional power on the bank of england site had to collapse. and i have looked at asia and the test of power in the region, whether it was the vp incid
-qaeda-inspired affiliated attack. yet five days later, the ambassador to the u.n. went out to all sunday news shows and told what was absolutely defiance of any rational logic or thinking. people don't come to spontaneous demonstrations with mortars and rocket propelled grenades. that was obvious on its face. why did they deceive the american people? why did the president of the united states continue to deceive the american people and the world? we need a select committee. nobody died in watergate. nobody died in iran-contra. four people died here. because of their lack of action as my friend lindsey graham says, they turned that consulate into a death trap. >> steve: they did indeed. now, senator, for people watching, they might not understand, we know some committees are meeting right now on capitol hill behind closed doors. you're calling for a select committee which politically might be hard -- i understand the republicans practice bely would go for that, but it might be hard to get the democrat controlled senate to sign on board with a select committee. >> it's going to require public pressure. the am
's fixed system on the bottom. it's un-- unmanned underwater vehicles that could be antonymous. we are not far from being able to deploy the system. we'll don't develop in field and integrated unmanned aerial system to froarpt a carrier. this next year, here in this fiscal year 13, we'll do a demonstration of unmanned vehicle from a carrier and recover that will be able to use that system. that will read us to building a system that can operate within our air wings and provide that persistence, maybe support logistics. if we don't have all the system of support the pilot. that's extra weight. extra payload, extra systems, extra capability. and that will be an important part of our future. a few words about our rebalance to the asia-pacific. sustaining appropriate capability in the middle east. it's been a long time focus for the u.s. navy. five of our seven treaty allies are in the pacific. six of the top economies in the largest army in the world are in the asia-pacific. so it makes sense that we would do that. as i have shown you or mentioned on thegraphic there, 50 -- about half
going forward, rick. rick: conor powell live on the ground in jerusalem, thanks. heather: well, u.n. ambassador susan rice defending those early comments on the benghazi terror attacks just days after the raid on the u.s. consulate. ambassador rice went on five sunday talk shows and said that the attack grew out of a spontaneous to protest over an anti-muslim film. and now she says those remarks were based on the intelligence she was given. >> when discussing the attacks against our facilities in benghazi, i relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. i made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers. heather: national security correspondent jennifer griffin is live from washington with the latest. hi, jennifer. >> reporter: hi, heather. well, essentially, she came out now was it's increasingly -- because it's increasingly clear that the president wants to nominate her to be his next secretary of state despite strong objections from senators such as john mccain. >> i have
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)